Boston has a large big tech presence but seems resistant to many of the negatives

[bostongymjunkie]

If you spent any time in Times Square circa 1993 you would know it wasn't just a talking point.

[WestieWhitie]

San Francisco decriminalized theft, what happened?

Minneapolis decriminalized crime, what happened?

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

That's more or less what I meant. But its still so far from that. That's a familiar past reality that probably was a political talking point (I can't confirm, wasn't alive) and some folks are comfortable rehashing it-imo, very prematurely.

As incrceration rates decline I think we're at a point with cities in this county where we realize maybe we went bit too far right with criminalization of large segments of cities and now we're trying to spark a comfortable balance. I also think demographic changes in metro areas has fueled sociological changes in more intangible way.

I have been going to NYC basically my whole life and have seen or just noticed slight changes over that time. I do think it feels a Bit more ‘lax’ than when in spent a week there in 2004. Or even 2014. Times Suqare at night was especially bad during the height of the pandemic.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

It honestly feels like people are just hoping it descend into “The Warriors” or something because its a narrative

There’s absolutely a good bit of this sentiment out there. Just read through the threads in the urban planning forum. There a contingent of people who view cities, particularly the “coastal elite” cities, as the picture of everything they don’t like and are actively rooting for their demise (the giddiness over COVID potentially destroying cities “for good” was palpable). I don’t see nearly as much of it here in the MA forum, but there’s a good deal of it out there.

[nakoshishiba]

Originally Posted by dozener

Boston has always been one of the leading tech centers yet it doesn’t seem to fall victim to the effects of a large tech presence as much as other areas. Side effects likes rampant homelessness or far-left rhetoric coming to dominate the local political scene. Why is this? So far the Bay Area, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Austin, even NYC have all been socially impacted by a large tech presence yet Boston has fared better relatively

i attended BU during 2011-13 for masters. i am from india and i can definitely second your opinion.
PS: Marxism is opium .

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by lrfox

There’s absolutely a good bit of this sentiment out there. Just read through the threads in the urban planning forum. There a contingent of people who view cities, particularly the “coastal elite” cities, as the picture of everything they don’t like and are actively rooting for their demise (the giddiness over COVID potentially destroying cities “for good” was palpable). I don’t see nearly as much of it here in the MA forum, but there’s a good deal of it out there.

Sure, but that’s tribal. No different than rooting for your sports team no matter what. It’s hypocritical but that’s how humans are wired.

Metro Boston Is massively socioeconomically segregated. Most of the metro is car-dependent suburbia that doesn’t work for homeless people in tents. The problem is invisible there. The climate in the urban parts isn’t hospitable to homeless people in tents. You’re never going to have a big inward migration of homeless like you see in the Bay Area.

I’d think your Vermont life experience would have exposed you to some of the tribal anti-city thing. You’re a flatlander. Probably some of it from your life experience in Maine, too. I’m sure you saw some class envy and anti-city in Westport, too. I certainly see it applied to the affluent summer people in Dartmouth.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Sure, but that’s tribal. No different than rooting for your sports team no matter what. It’s hypocritical but that’s how humans are wired.

Metro Boston Is massively socioeconomically segregated. Most of the metro is car-dependent suburbia that doesn’t work for homeless people in tents. The problem is invisible there. The climate in the urban parts isn’t hospitable to homeless people in tents. You’re never going to have a big inward migration of homeless like you see in the Bay Area.

I’d think your Vermont life experience would have exposed you to some of the tribal anti-city thing. You’re a flatlander. Probably some of it from your life experience in Maine, too. I’m sure you saw some class envy and anti-city in Westport, too. I certainly see it applied to the affluent summer people in Dartmouth.

I'd agree that the homeless issue here will almost certainly never reach the proportions seen in LA and San Francisco. But I don't think it needs to reach that level to be really bad. Without major intervention, the Mass/Cass corridor has grown progressively worse over the decades and it's not a seasonal thing either. Addiction and mental illness will make people do things that most of us wouldn't dream of like literally risking their lives to live outside in Boston over the winter. You're also right that the suburbs of Eastern MA are different than the much denser, more urban Bay Area 'burbs, so that homelessness will never take root in our 'burbs the same way it does there. But I think that's a factor that actually contributes to people congregating in Boston (and to a lesser extent, the other urban areas in MA - New Bedford and Fall River have growing problems too). There was a Globe Spotlight segment on Mass Cass the other day and most of the people interviewed were coming from smaller towns outside of the city.

I've definitely been exposed to the tribal stuff. I was the "city kid" in College even though I'm from Freetown, MA. My college girlfriend's grandparents were actually upset she was dating someone from Massachusetts. I distinctly remember them complaining about how "Ma$$h*les" look down on "simple" Mainers while simultaneously calling the towns they drive through in MA "dumps" and wondering how anyone could ever actually choose to live in the dirty, crowded, traffic jammed, crime-ridden city. This overall attitude and the ironic hypocrisy of it was one of the big reasons I'd never consider living in Maine full time even though I love visiting. I've experienced it less in Vermont, though my fiancee's father does joke about us being "flatties." Some of this is probably my circle in Vermont, but I do think that VT has been "infiltrated" to a greater extent by the outside world and people from elsewhere and is generally less isolated. The Northeast Kingdom is certainly isolated/remote and is the part of the state that reminds me most of Maine beyond Augusta. Westport was definitely more about affluence rather than location or urban vs. rural - locals were predisposed to not liking the affluent seasonal folks ("renters" they called them down at the beach).

[mdovell]

You can screw up the housing market with a combination of municipal employee residency requirements, height restrictions and aggressive historical preservation limiting expansion. In DC they have height restrictions (springfield had it as well until the 80's which is why the skyline is much less than say...hartford). Residency requirements don't help as it mandates people live there which drives costs up. I'm all for historical preservation but ultimately if you can't even add a adu it limits the number of people. Combine these for a moment. Say the SF city government creates a new department. If they require employees to live there that would attract people from other parts and pretty much force others out. I'd also add that California has much worse public transit. Then add prop 13 and the sky high sales taxes and it adds up.

The problem I see to be frank is also that suburban areas aren't really prepared for what a downturn would really look like. The argument is that cities have jobs but people would rather live in the more suburban areas as they think there's less crime, better schools, property values etc. But here's the thing...proximity was pre covid. If you can work from home you can work from anywhere really. I have people in my department that are in NJ and I think Ohio. Gateway cities declined because they placed huge bets on one industry. Holyoke was paper, Quincy was the shipyard, Fall River and New Bedford whale oil and then fishing, brockton was shoes everyone in the state knows these. But if Boston is still a WFH environment it means more time at home for those working from home. Statistically speaking if you have a large group of people the more likelyhood that things will happen. Building and fire codes easily apply but so does crime. An increase in home cooking can easily increase the number of fires in a house. If towns don't have anything to lean on it's going to be pretty bad. Concentrating on schools is fine for property values but as wfh continues what's the point if they leave and then don't come back? Chain stores and resturants and online shopping are everywhere. I think an argument can be made that drug users are more scattered but drug dealers are more in urban areas. With that in mind where will users go if there's not enough users to validate the dealers being in a city? more drug use in towns. In Springfield if there's violence they usually get the person pretty quick. Between the cameras and shot spotter it helps. On the south shore there was a stabbing years ago and literally SIX departments had to be called. They caught the guy but if one stabbing led to six departments being involved what happens if it's something more significant? I often argue that if you don't do drugs, sell drugs or are in a gang that the chances of violence happening against you in a city are slim. Some try to counter that by saying what about those caught in the crossfire? Fair enough but under that logic what if some suburb is the middle ground for a gang war? I see violence not based on location but simply because of where assailants crossed paths. We're ALREADY seen some of this in malls

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local...enced/1838364/

So as malls continue to die out where will they bump into each other? Generally criminals don't care where people live but it's much easier to go into suburbs and rural areas than before. GPS and smart phones made this much easier. Less cameras, less police and less media also means a higher likelihood of getting away with things.

Beyond Augusta...hmm I think beyond Bangor they just tend to stare at you. Maybe it's the population density but I don't tend to look at things just because they are in motion. Reminds me of being in northern Berkshire County hearing about the "riff raff" in North Adams...huh? Sometimes connectivity is more generational. Talking to people that don't exactly use the internet or smartphones is like going back in time 10-20 years.

[masssachoicetts]

OP you are comparing Boston to urban CA and NYC. Obviously, those two will fare worse than Boston in those departments.